3. Montgomery County Project

3.1 Project Background

The Montgomery County project began as an ITS operational test. The advanced parking information system there, which has been in place since April 23, 2007, provides information about parking availability at the Glenmont Metro park-and-ride lot located in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation (MCDOT) is the lead agency for the project, and they undertook the project to encourage greater utilization of Maryland's transit facilities by providing commuters with more timely information about parking availability at transit stations.

MCDOT chose to implement system at the Glenmont Metro garage and at the Norbeck bus/park-and-ride lot. The Glenmont Station is a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metro facility and is located at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road, approximately 3 miles outside of the Capital Beltway (Figure 28 below shows the Glenmont Metro Station location [shown in the red box] in relation to the Metro system and the Capital Beltway [shown in gray]). Patrons must pay $4.00 to park at the station. The Glenmont Metro parking garage has approximately 1,781 parking spaces and, of these, 32 are reserved for patrons with disabilities and 280 are reserved for those who purchase the space in advance (after 10:00 AM any unused reserved spaces are available to the general public).

The Glenmont park-and-ride lot is at capacity on most weekdays. As a result, many motorists arrive at the Glenmont Station only to find that there is no parking available. These individuals must either find alternate parking at another Metro station or drive directly to their destination. The primary objective of the system, therefore, was to inform en-route motorists when the Glenmont lot has reached capacity and to suggest alternate parking facilities including the nearby Wheaton Metro Station and the Norbeck park-and-ride lot.

Figure 28. Location of Glenmont Metro Station in Relation to Metro System.

As shown in Figure 29 below, the Wheaton Metro Station is the next station on the Red Line on the way into downtown Washington, DC. According to MCDOT, the Wheaton Station is very rarely at capacity on weekdays, so this provides one viable alternative for commuters. Another alternative is the Norbeck park-and-ride facility, located approximately 4 miles north of the Glenmont Station. There are approximately 250 parking spaces at the Norbeck lot, and it is free to park there; however, patrons must pay bus fares to transfer to the Glenmont Station. Bus service is provided by both Metrobus and Montgomery County Ride On. The fare is $1.25 for the inbound trip and $0.35 for the return trip with Metrorail transfer. Metrobus service operates each weekday from 6:30–9:00 AM and from 4:50–7:30 PM with 15 minute headways, while Ride On service operates from 5:40–8:30 AM with 20–30 minute headways and from 4:00–6:45 PM with 25 minute headways. It is believed that the limited hours (e.g., no mid-day service) may contribute to underutilization of the Norbeck lot.

Figure 29. Map of Metro Stations and Park and Ride Lots.[23]

3.2 System Description

The Montgomery County system consists of two main components: video detection systems and VMS. Video detection systems monitor the four garage entrances and exits at the Glenmont Parking Garage. Each video detection system monitors and counts vehicle ingress and egress at that particular entrance. The location of the Glenmont entrances and the corresponding video detectors are shown in Figure 30.

Figure 30. Glenmont Metro Station Video Detection Locations and Entrances.[24]

In addition to the video detection systems, the system also includes a total of three trailer-mounted VMSs which convey real-time information about parking availability to transit users while en-route. Instructions are fed to the signs through cellular modems. The signs are programmed to display messages based on thresholds set by the project team to alert commuters when there are no more spaces available. For the purpose of this project the team selected a threshold of 1,300 spaces after evaluating the rate of cars entering the lot during the peak period, the number of cars already in the lot, and the time delay of information being posted to the signs to allow for the last remaining spots to be filled.

As shown in Figure 31, there is a static sign mounted on the variable message sign that says, "Glenmont Parking Info." The dynamic portion of the sign activates at 5:30 AM at which time it displays "SPACES AVAIL" until the Glenmont facility reaches capacity. Once the lot is full, the first message set on all of the signs reads, "NON RSVD SPACES FULL." The second message set varies depending on the location of the sign. The second message set on the two VMSs located near Glenmont (sign #3 in Figure 32) is "USE WHEATON STATION." The two VMSs located near the Norbeck lot (signs #1 and 2 in Figure 32) display the message "USE P&R ON NORBECK."

Figure 31. Glenmont VMS Signs.

Figure 32. VMS Locations in Montgomery County, MD.[25]

3.3 Evaluation Approach / Data Collection Methodologies

A set of test hypotheses was developed to assess the impacts of the system at the Glenmont and Norbeck parking facilities. Each hypothesis was tested by collecting data before and after system deployment and by analyzing this data to determine if there is a measurable difference that can be attributed to the system. The specific test hypotheses for the evaluation have been divided into two categories: key and secondary. While both sets of hypotheses are important to this evaluation, it is believed that the key hypotheses have greater value for determining the impacts of the system. The hypotheses are provided below:

Key Hypothesis:

• The system will increase driver awareness of parking alternatives when riding the Red Line in Montgomery County.
• The system will positively affect customer satisfaction.

Secondary Hypotheses:

• The system will reduce circulation within the Glenmont Garage.
• The system will increase parking utilization at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride Lot while maintaining the current parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station.
• The system will increase transit ridership on the Red Line as the parking utilization at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot increases.
• The system will result in an increase in transit mode share among commuters whose origins lie near the Glenmont Station.

Table 3 outlines the hypotheses for the Montgomery County evaluation, and for each hypothesis, identifies one or more MOEs that will be used to assess the hypothesis. The data sources and analysis approaches that will be used to compute the MOEs are also illustrated.

Table 3. Evaluation Approach for Montgomery County Project.

Hypotheses	MOE	Data Source	Proposed Analysis
The system will increase driver awareness of parking alternatives when riding the Red Line in Montgomery County.	Rider-reported awareness of parking alternatives.	Intercept surveys in the "After" case at the Glenmont Metro Station and Norbeck park-and-ride lot.	Analysis of surveys.
The system will positively affect customer satisfaction.	Rider-reported level of customer satisfaction.	Intercept surveys in the "After" case at the Glenmont Metro Station and Norbeck park-and-ride lot.	Analysis of surveys.
The system will reduce circulation within the Glenmont Garage.	Number of vehicles leaving the Glenmont Garage during the AM peak.	In/out counts at the Glenmont Garage during the AM peak period from the system.	Before/after analysis.
The system will increase parking utilization at the Norbeck park-and-ride Lot while maintaining the current parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station.	Parking utilization at Glenmont.	National Evaluation: – Archived in/out system data ("after" data and 2 weeks of "before" data collected before the system is turned on to the public). – In/out counts before/after system deployment (5 continuous weekdays). Local Evaluation: –- In/out counts before/after system deployment (5 continuous weekdays). – Parking occupancy data before and after system deployment (1 weekday).	Before/after analysis.
	Parking utilization at Norbeck.	National Evaluation: – In/out counts before/after system deployment (5 continuous weekdays). Local Evaluation: – In/out counts before/after system deployment (3 continuous weekdays).	Before/after analysis.
The system will increase transit ridership on the Red Line as the parking utilization at the Norbeck park-and-ride lot increases.	AM peak period boardings at the Glenmont and Metro Station on the Red Line.	Ridership data from WMATA.	Before/after analysis.
	Rider-reported transit use.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.
The system will result in an increase in transit mode share among commuters whose origins lie near the Glenmont Station.	Rider-reported transit use.	Customer intercept surveys.	Analysis of surveys.

3.3.1 Ridership and Parking Utilization Data

As with the Chicago project, one source of data to provide an indication of parking utilization is the system itself. The parking management system collects and archives in/out counts at the Glenmont Garage on a continual basis in 15-minute increments and, to enable the evaluation team to obtain "before" data, Montgomery County agreed to leave the system "turned off" to motorists for a full week after system functionality tests had been performed and the system was fully operational (for the period of time May 21–25, 2007).

The evaluation team also used various other sources to supplement these data including data from the following sources:

• Automated in/out counts – Montgomery County's local evaluation team collected in/out data at the Glenmont Garage and the Norbeck lot on a range of dates both before and after system deployment. Data that are presented in this report include:
  • In/out counts collected at the Glenmont Garage and the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot in 15-minute increments in July/August 2005 and May 2006 (before system deployment).
  • In/out counts at the Glenmont Garage in 1-hour increments for the week of June 12–19, 2007, and August 21–-23, 2007 (after system deployment).
  • In/out counts at the Norbeck lot in 5-minute increments from 12:00 PM on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, through 12:00 PM on Thursday, September 28, 2007 (after system deployment).
• Manual in/out counts – Montgomery County's local evaluators conducted manual observations as well:
  • In/out counts were collected at the Glenmont parking garage in 15-minute increments for the time periods July 28–August 4, 2005 (before system deployment).
  • In/out counts at the Norbeck lot in 15-minute increments from 5:30–8:55 AM on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 (after system deployment).

The evaluation team also worked with WMATA to obtain ridership data for the Red Line. The evaluation team analyzed and compared before and after ridership data to determine if the system has in fact had an impact on the number of boardings at Glenmont.

3.3.2 Customer Intercept Surveys

In order to assess customer satisfaction with parking information system, the evaluation team administered surveys to patrons parking at the Glenmont Metro Station and at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot. Surveys were designed to address the following hypotheses:

• The system will increase driver awareness of parking alternatives when riding the Red Line in Montgomery County.
• The system will positively affect customer satisfaction.
• The system will reduce circulation within the Glenmont Garage.
• The system will increase parking utilization at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride Lot while maintaining the current parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station.
• The system will increase transit ridership on the Red Line as the parking utilization at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot increases.
• The system will result in an increase in transit mode share among commuters whose origins lie near the Glenmont Station.

The survey also sought to determine if there are other barriers to parking at Norbeck that are unrelated to the system. The survey format was comprised solely of multiple choice and check box questions to ensure that it could be completed in just a few minutes so as to not intrude on the riders' daily commute and also allowed for a greater response rate. The complete survey instrument can be found in the Appendix.

Surveyors administered customer intercept surveys at the Glenmont Metro Station during two consecutive 3-hour mid-week PM peak periods (4:00–7:00 PM on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 and Wednesday, June 13, 2007[26]). The evaluation team selected the PM period over the AM period since it would have been difficult to capture enough patrons willing to complete the survey while waiting for the train in the morning since patrons are anxious to board a train and the train headways are very small during the peak periods (trains arrive and depart approximately every 6 minutes).

To obtain surveys, surveyors approached patrons as they alighted trains, and then screened to target those who indicated that they drove and parked at the Glenmont Station garage that day (many patrons walk to the station or use the kiss-and-ride facility, and would therefore not have a need for the system). Of those who indicated that they did drive and park at Glenmont that day, surveyors then asked them to complete the survey. Surveyors read questions to the respondents to encourage participation and to expedite completion of the surveys. In total the team was able to obtain 322 surveys over the two-day period, just exceeding the goal of 317 surveys (the evaluation team arrived at this goal based on an estimated population of 1,800,[27] a confidence level of 95 percent, and a confidence interval of +/- 5).[28]

At the Norbeck lot, surveyors administered surveys on the same two days, but during the AM peak (from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM). On average, buses depart the Norbeck lot every 10 to 15 minutes during the AM peak, so unlike at Glenmont, this presented a good opportunity to administer surveys while patrons were waiting for the bus to arrive. The evaluation team screened patrons to target those who were taking the bus to the Glenmont Station that day (some patrons park at Norbeck to take the bus to another destination and therefore do not use the system). As with Glenmont, surveyors read questions to the respondents to encourage participation and to expedite completion of the surveys.

At Norbeck, surveyors were able to obtain surveys from every patron who parked there and met the screening criteria. However, on both days that the survey collection was conducted, the Norbeck lot was nearly empty so the evaluation team was in fact only able to collect 11 surveys over the two-day period. The evaluation team inquired about how full the lot is on a typical day, and on both days the team was told by survey respondents and by the shuttle bus operator that the lot typically contains only 30 cars. Interestingly enough, on both days that the surveys were conducted, the Glenmont Garage filled to capacity by 7:40 AM, leaving ample opportunity for commuters to park at Norbeck. This may indicate that despite the presence of message signs advising people that the garage is full (and recommending Norbeck as an alternative), commuters are still electing not to park there. At the start of the evaluation it was thought that there might not be an increase in parking utilization at Norbeck for a number of reasons. First is simply a limitation of the system: the sign recommends Norbeck as an alternative, but is not able to provide information regarding where Norbeck is located. As a result, patrons may not park there simply because they do not know where the lot is located.

Furthermore, it may not be possible to detect an increase in parking utilization at Norbeck simply because patrons may not view Norbeck as a viable alternative to Glenmont. First, the location of the Norbeck lot may not be convenient for many patrons (particularly for those who live between Norbeck and Glenmont as they would have to travel out of their way to park at Norbeck). Second, the bus service between Norbeck and Glenmont may not be appealing to patrons for any number of reasons (e.g., it does not run late enough in the evenings, it does not offer mid-day service, it takes too long, it is not reliable, it is not frequent enough). Finally, some patrons may simply perceive that parking at the Wheaton Metro Station is a better alternative to Glenmont than the Norbeck lot.

3.4 Findings

3.4.1 Impact of the System on Ridership, Parking Utilization, & Arrival Patterns

It would typically be expected that the addition of a parking information system would draw in new riders and result in an increase in parking utilization. However, in the case of the Montgomery County project, the garage is typically at capacity on weekdays,[29] so instead it was expected that the system would result in a change in parking utilization throughout the day at Glenmont (for example, that arrival patterns throughout the morning hours would change as commuters become more familiar with when the lots fill up based on the information provided on the signs). For the Norbeck lot, it was thought that the system might increase awareness, and thereby utilization, of the lot. To determine if this was the case, the evaluation team looked at parking utilization at both Glenmont and Norbeck.

In order to assess the impact of the system on parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station, the evaluation team looked at the archived system data from before and after system deployment. To supplement these data and to verify system accuracy,[30] the evaluation team used magnetic cards[31] to collect in/out counts at the Glenmont Garage for 5 weekdays before and after the signs were deployed and functioning. Data were collected in July/August 2005, May 2006, and June/August 2007.[32]

Data for the 2-week period in July/August 2005 has been combined into one lump set of data due to the fact that counters at some of the garage entrances and exits failed on certain days during the data collection. For example, the "Thursday data" shown here actually represents data collected on two consecutive Thursdays (July 28, 2005, and August 4, 2005) due to counter failures at various times throughout the day, and data from August 3, 2005, is used for Wednesday comparisons since the July 27th data set was incomplete. Therefore, for Glenmont, July/August 2005 data and May 25–26, 2006 data (both collected before system deployment) are compared to August 22–24, 2007 data (collected after system deployment).

3.4.1.1 Parking Utilization at Norbeck

The parking management system does not monitor or measure parking utilization at the Norbeck lot, so in order to assess the impact of the system on parking utilization there, data on in/out counts at the lot had to be collected specifically for the purposes of this study. Again magnetic cards were used to collect data before and after system deployment. However, it was impossible to ascertain from the data whether utilization of the lot increased among commuters using Glenmont. The data were clouded by the fact that it appears that many patrons park there overnight and that others use the lot for multiple reasons including for carpooling and for taking the bus to other destinations. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that very few people use the lot for the purposes of boarding the Metro at Glenmont. When surveying patrons at this lot, the evaluation team inquired about how full the lot is on a typical day, and on both days the team was told by survey respondents and by the shuttle bus operator that the lot typically contains only 30 cars. It is thought that the limited hours may contribute to the underutilization of the Norbeck lot.

3.4.1.2 Parking Utilization at Glenmont

In order to determine the impact of the system on parking utilization at the Glenmont Metro Station, the evaluation team first looked at detailed data on space availability that had been manually collected by the local evaluation team in December 2004.[33] For this data collection effort, parking space availability was recorded by space type on December 2, 2004, from 5:30 AM–2:15 PM. These data provide some insight into how quickly the garage fills. The data collected show that more than half of the regular and handicapped parking spaces were filled by 7:00 AM, and that by 8:15 AM all but one (which remained open all day) non-reserved space remained unoccupied (the reserved spaces did not fill to capacity).

Next the evaluation team looked to manual observations that were conducted during June and August 2007 by the local evaluation team. Consistent with the December 2004 data collected, these data show that the garage roof parking spaces (the spaces that typically fill last) were filled between 7:38–8:20 AM. Using 8:00 AM as a benchmark time to compare the utilization at Glenmont over time, the data collected in August 2005 (before the system) indicate that there were on average 1,460 cars in the lot; in August 2007 (after the system) there were 1,646 cars in the lot. The 13 percent increase in those arriving before 8:00 AM after the addition of the system could be an indication that commuters realized the need to arrive early in order to get a parking space once the system was in place.

Figure 33 shows space utilization at the Glenmont Garage throughout the morning hours during the three data collection periods. As expected, the largest influx of cars occurred during the AM morning peak hours (5:00–7:00 AM).

Note the anomaly of the continued increase in arrivals throughout the late morning in 2005. On that particular day the arrivals show increased activity between 11:00 AM–2:00 PM and again between 4:00–6:00 PM, indicating that there was likely an event downtown that would have caused there to be increased Metro usage on that day.

Figure 33. Space Utilization at Glenmont on Thursdays.

3.4.1.3 Ridership

To determine if the system had any impact on ridership, the evaluation team first analyzed ridership data from WMATA to see if any notable increases in ridership had occurred since the signs became operational. Since the Glenmont parking garage is typically at capacity, any increase in ridership there would indicate either an increase in those parking at Norbeck (i.e., to access Glenmont) or an increase in those arriving at Glenmont through some other means (i.e., walk, bike, kiss-and-ride).

In looking at monthly weekday boardings at both stations over the past 3 years, there is no indication that ridership has increased at either station since the signs were installed. In addition, since usage of the Norbeck lot does not appear to have increased since the signs were installed, it does not seem reasonable that any increase in ridership at Glenmont would have been the result of the system.

3.4.1.4 Mode Share

Survey respondents were asked in two different ways whether they felt that the signs have had any impact on how often they ride Metro. As shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35, approximately 50 percent of respondents answered "N/A" to both questions.[34] When asked to what extent they agree with the statement, "The information provided on the signs has not affected how often I ride Metro," approximately 45 percent of respondents at Norbeck and 30 percent of respondents at Glenmont reported that they felt that the signs have not impacted their decision to ride the Metro. This is most likely due to the fact that a good deal of respondents (89 percent of those at Glenmont) already ride the Metro four to five times a week. Thirteen percent of respondents at Glenmont and 18 percent of respondents at Norbeck gave responses that would indicate that they feel the signs have affected how often they ride Metro.

Figure 34. Influence of Sign Information on Frequency of Riding Metro.

When asked more directly (by indicating to what extent they agree with the statement, "I've found myself riding Metro more now that the signs provide me with information about the availability of parking spaces"), again many respondents selected "N/A." An average of 25 percent of respondents reported that they do not feel that they ride Metro more often now that the signs provide them with information about the availability of parking spaces (see Figure 35) while 9 percent of respondents at Norbeck and 4 percent of respondents at Glenmont indicated that they signs have affected how often they ride Metro (responding disagree or strongly disagree).

Figure 35. Influence of the Signs on Frequency of Riding Metro.

3.4.2 Impact of the System on Awareness of Parking Alternatives

Figure 36 shows respondents' level of agreement with whether the message signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives. Twenty-seven percent of respondents at Norbeck and 17 percent at Glenmont indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that the signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives for the Red Line. Thirty percent of respondents at Norbeck indicated that they did not know about the lot prior to the signs, which explain why the Norbeck responses were more positive.

Figure 36. Influence of the Signs on Awareness of Parking Alternatives for the Red Line.

To determine if the signs have raised awareness about the Norbeck Lot, the Norbeck respondents were asked whether they knew about the Park-and-Ride Lot before the installation of the signs. Seventy percent of respondents said they had known about the lot, while 30 percent said that they were not aware of the location prior to the installation of the signs. Respondents were also asked how often they park at Norbeck. Fifty percent of respondents said they usually park there, 38 percent said they rarely park there, and one respondent said that they were parking there for the first time. When asked why they did not park there more often, one said he will most likely park there again as he found it online and this was his first time there; another said he normally walks to Norbeck but was running late this morning; and a third commented that he normally drives to work.

When asked why they parked at Norbeck on the day of the survey, 20 percent of respondents reported that it was because they saw a message sign saying that the Glenmont station was full, 30 percent reported that they normally park there because Glenmont is usually full, and 20 percent reported that they normally park there because it is less expensive (see Figure 37).

Figure 37. Reasons Respondents Parked at Norbeck.

3.4.3 Impact of the System on Circulation within Glenmont Garage

It was hypothesized that the parking information system would reduce or eliminate circulation within the Glenmont Garage. That is, those motorists who would previously circle through a full garage looking for a space would now know that the lot was full and would avoid entering it altogether. In the absence of the system, this unnecessary traffic circulation results in wasted time for potential transit patrons, and more significantly, a loss of potential riders for the Metro system, as many of these motorists simply drive directly to their final destination when unable to find parking.

In order to assess whether the system did in fact reduce this unnecessary circulation, the evaluation team looked at a surrogate measure. Specifically, the team looked at the number of vehicles exiting the lot during the AM peak period (5:00–9:00 AM), as there should be very few if any patrons leaving the lot during the this time with the exception of those who are unable to find parking.

Figure 38 displays the number of vehicles exiting the Glenmont Garage during the AM peak hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays during May 2006 (before) and June 2007 (after). As hypothesized, the number of cars exiting the parking garage during the morning peak hours was lower after installation of the signs.

Before the system was installed, 161 vehicles left the lot during the AM peak hour (between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM) in total over the 2-day period, while only 70 vehicles left the lot during that same timeframe after the system was installed. This represents a 57 percent reduction in vehicles circulating within the garage, or 46 fewer vehicles circulating each day. Interestingly enough the data did not show this same reduction between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. In fact, there was no apparent difference between the number of vehicles leaving the lot during this hour when comparing the before and after data (66 vehicles left the lot during this hour after the system while 74 vehicles left the lot during this hour before the system). Reasons for this are uncertain. However, what it could suggest is that commuters who arrive later in the peak period know that their alternative options are increasingly limited and thus are more likely to "ignore" the lot full signs and investigate for themselves.

If the system did in fact result in 46 fewer vehicles circling the garage to find parking on a typical day (since the signs would have warned them in advance and they would have avoided the garage altogether), it is interesting to consider what the environmental impact associated with this reduction in travel would be.

The emission reduction can be calculated by assigning a "gas usage" number to each circulating vehicle. If it is assumed that each motorist who circulates within the garage uses the amount of gas that would be equivalent to traveling 2 miles, emissions savings resulting from the wasted trips through the garage would equate to 10.490 tons of carbon dioxide (or 20,980 lbs) over the course of a year.[35]

Figure 38. Vehicles Exiting Glenmont during AM Peak (7:00-9:00AM).

To get a sense for how difficult it is to find parking at the Glenmont Metro Station, respondents there were asked if there has ever been a time that they could not find parking at the station. Sixty-six percent responded that there has been at least one time that they were unable to find a space. Of those who have not had trouble with parking, many reported that this is because they intentionally arrive early to ensure that they will not have trouble finding a space; in addition (as expected), some indicated that parking is not a concern for them since they have a reserved parking space.

Figure 39 shows responses to whether respondents ever spent time circling the Glenmont Garage prior to the signs. Forty percent of Norbeck respondents and 16 percent of Glenmont respondents agreed or strongly agreed that before the signs they often spent time circling the garage looking for a space.

Figure 39. Percentage of Respondents Who Reported Circling the Garage Looking for a Space.

For those who reported that they have had trouble finding a parking spot at Glenmont in the past, respondents were asked to identify locations where they have parked as an alternative to Glenmont. Figure 40 shows that half of the respondents reported that they have parked at the nearby Wheaton Metro Station, and 1 percent (only 2 people) reported they have parked at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot. In addition to the categories listed here, some respondents commented that they have parked illegally, parked at the Silver Spring Metro Station, waited for a spot to open up, or simply returned home and worked from there.

Figure 40. Reported Alternate Parking Options for Glenmont Metro Station.

Respondents at the Glenmont Metro Station were also asked how often they park at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride Lot, and if they reported that they rarely or never do, they were asked why they do not. Five percent of respondents reported that they rarely park at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride, 47 percent of respondents indicated that they have never parked there but were aware of the location, and 46 percent reported that they were not aware of the location of the lot. Of the respondents who reported that they were aware of the Norbeck Park-and-Ride option but have not parked there, 34 percent indicated that the reason they do not park there is because it is out of their way, 17 percent reported that they do not need to park at Norbeck as they do not typically have trouble finding a spot at Glenmont, and 11 percent responded that they were unfamiliar with the bus schedules at Norbeck. In addition to those comments, respondents commented that parking at Norbeck adds too much time to their commute, that they simply do not want to park there, and that they have a reserved spot at the Glenmont Station.

Respondents were asked if they agreed that the signs had not made any difference to them since they have never had trouble finding parking on the Red Line. Twenty-seven percent of Norbeck respondents and 18 percent of Glenmont respondents felt that the signs had made a difference to them because they have experienced trouble finding a parking spot at Glenmont (answering disagree or strongly disagree). Seventeen percent of Norbeck respondents and 21 percent of Glenmont respondents said that the signs had not made any difference to them because they have never had trouble finding a spot at Glenmont (answering agreed or strongly agreed). Some of the respondents commented that they did not trust the information on the signs so they would still look for a space even if the sign told them that the lot was full.

Figure 41. Influence of the Signs on Finding Parking.

Respondents were asked if they thought that the signs have reduced the amount of time they spend searching for an available parking space. Figure 42 shows that 70 percent of respondents at Norbeck believed that the signs have reduced the amount of time they spend looking for a space (answering agreed or strongly agreed) while only 16 percent of respondents at Glenmont felt that the signs have reduced the amount of time they spend looking for a space.

Figure 42. Influence of Signs on Time Spent Searching for a Space.

The evaluation team hypothesized that the signs would increase driver awareness of parking alternatives. Figure 43 shows respondents' agreement with whether the message signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives. Over half of respondents selected "N/A", indicating that they were already aware of parking options for the Red Line. Twenty-seven percent of respondents at Norbeck and 17 percent of respondents at Glenmont indicated that they agree or strongly agree that the signs have improved their awareness of parking alternatives for the Red Line. Thirty percent of respondents parking at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride lot said they did not know about the lot prior to the signs which may be part of the reason the Norbeck responses were more positive (only nine percent of those at Norbeck disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement).

Figure 43. Influence of the Signs on Awareness of Parking Alternatives for the Red Line.

3.4.4 Customer Satisfaction with the Signs

Survey results indicate that both Glenmont and Norbeck respondents were satisfied with the sign locations and accuracy and would like to see similar signs at other Metro locations. Respondents at Norbeck had more positive feedback to offer than those at Glenmont. Glenmont respondents were neutral in their response to whether the information on the signs had improved their overall commuting experience.

Respondents were asked if during their normal commute they have ever seen a message sign (like the one shown in Figure 31) showing parking availability for the Glenmont Metro Station garage. Figure 44 shows that 91 percent of Norbeck Park-and-Ride respondents reported that they have seen the signs and 61 percent of Glenmont Metro respondents reported that they have seen the signs. Surprisingly, nearly 40 percent of those parking at the Glenmont Metro Station reported that they have never seen the signs. This may be due to the fact that some respondents commented to the surveyors that they arrive so early in the morning they do not have to worry about finding a spot, so even if there were a sign along their commute they probably would not have noticed it.

Figure 44. Glenmont Parking Availability Sign on Norbeck Road.

Respondents who reported having seen a parking availability message sign on their normal commute were then asked to identify the location(s) where they had seen the signs. Figure 45 shows that the two most common sign locations that respondents reported having seen were on Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road. Sixty-four percent of respondents at Norbeck reported seeing the sign on Georgia Avenue, 27 percent on Norbeck Road, and 9 percent on Layhill Road. Thirty-three percent of respondents at Glenmont reported seeing the sign on Georgia Avenue, 6 percent on Norbeck Road, and 57 percent on Layhill Road.

Figure 45. Reported Awareness of Parking Availability Message Sign Locations.

Respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the location of the signs on their morning commute to see whether the signs were located in appropriate areas to give them enough time to make decisions regarding their trip. Forty percent of respondents at Norbeck responded that the signs were appropriately located (recall that 64 percent see the sign on Georgia Avenue). Twenty-eight percent of Glenmont respondents agreed that the signs were appropriately located (recall that 57 percent see the sign on Layhill Road). Ten percent of Norbeck respondents and 9 percent of Glenmont respondents said the signs were not located in an appropriate place for them to make decisions regarding their morning commute.

Figure 46. Reported Satisfaction with Sign Location.

Figure 47 shows respondents' perception of sign accuracy. On average, 23 percent of respondents felt that the sign information was accurate (answering agree or strongly agree). No respondents at Norbeck responded that they did not think the signs were accurate whereas 9 percent of respondents at Glenmont responded that they did not think the signs were accurate.

Figure 47. Reported Satisfaction with Sign Accuracy.

Figure 48 shows responses related to the influence of the parking availability signs on the "overall commuting experience." Twenty-seven percent of respondents at the Norbeck Park-and-Ride Lot reported that the signs have in fact improved their overall commuting experience while no respondents at Norbeck reported that the signs have not improved their commute. Glenmont respondents were evenly split, with 14 percent of respondents reporting that the signs have improved their commuting experience and 14 percent reporting that the signs have not improved their overall commuting experience.

Figure 48. Reported Influence of the System on Satisfaction with Overall Commuting Experience.

Finally, respondents were asked if they would like to see similar signs installed at other Metro stations. At the Norbeck Park-and-Ride Lot, 55 percent of respondents indicated that they would like to see the signs while no respondents answered they would not like to see them. At the Glenmont Metro Station 30 percent of respondents said they would like to see the signs at other Metro stations while 4 percent of respondents said they would not. Again for this question there were a high number of respondents who answered "not applicable."[36]

Figure 49. Desire for Expansion of the Sign Program.

Previous | Next

ITS Home | US DOT Home | Privacy | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - ITS